And how does patting a woman on the head and treating her like she is a child, help her to be strong and in charge of her life? This is what happens when agency is denied.
Oh, you are so in another universe, Charity.
Yeah, the cognitive behavioral universe, not the Freudianone. Rogerianism doesn't work, you know.
Really? Hmmmmm......((....Tori giggles....)) LOL.....((((Tori is laughing, big belly laughs now))). Oh...((Tori wiping tears from her eyes))....That's a funny one, Charity. Too funny! :-)
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who cold not hear the music. ----Nietzche
And how does patting a woman on the head and treating her like she is a child, help her to be strong and in charge of her life? This is what happens when agency is denied.
Oh, you are so in another universe, Charity.
Yeah, the cognitive behavioral universe, not the Freudianone. Rogerianism doesn't work, you know.
Charity, you are truly a tool, deficit of understanding with all of your getting. There is a famine of empathy within you.
Psych degree. Truly inconceivable
So which is better?
Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.
OR
Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.
Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.
OR
Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.
This is a false dichotomy of your own construct.
And, by the way, why wasn't Jesus telling the leaders of his church to tell victims of abuse to get the h**l outa dodge?
Last edited by Tator on Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
charity wrote:BishopRic, were you called and sustained as a bishop, or were you actiing in your capacity as First Counselor? I have never known as a situation where a First Counselor stepped out of his ordained and set apart position, even when the bishop was gone for a month. As ours just was. So, were you actually called by the stake president? Sustained by your ward as the bishop?
Please let us know.
Lucretia, little locks in the dressing room destroyed your testimony? And please, PADLOCKS is quite an overstatement. The keys to the lockers in the Portland temple are so small, I sometimes have a hard time finding mine if I have a couple of cough drops in my pocket.
I always laugh when the interrogations start about my story. The Mormon mind works wonders...when challenged, it goes straight to questioning the source, rather than the actual event. I guess it keeps the Mormon safe if they can somehow discredit the challenger...don't have to consider the possibility that the church is less than perfect!
Just so you can remain in your perfect bubble Charity, I won't answer your questions. There, now you're okay...you can imagine anything you want -- and I'm sure you will!
And I always enjoy it when those who insist on "truth in advertising" get coy with pertinent facts. Of course, it makes a difference if you were an ordained bishop, or a first counselor in a bishopric when you relate a direct experience. It wouldn't make a hill of beans difference if you were opining about the Book of Abraham, or the narrow neck of land. Here it does. You made representations that are beginning to sound little fishy. Like the guy who insisted he was almsot a Seventy. He had gotten all the way to the Sixty's. Nobody "steps into" being the "boss" of the ward.
You don't understand BishopRic, if you're experience in the Mormon Church doesn't jibe with Charity's, well, yours must just somehow be inauthentic. Charity has this amazingly developed capacity to generalize from a sample set of 1. She must of learned this skill in her Masters courses in Psych.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
BishopRic wrote: I guess you don't understand the abuse cycle. You are right, they didn't have much "spine." They had not been raised with one. I would think with a psychology background Charity, that you would understand the fear and guilt many of these women have -- and they have been taught that much of the abuse is their fault. You use this word a lot, but it is appropriate here -- "SAD," but common.
I understand the abuse cycle. And do you understand that 70% of women raised in abusive homes go on to NEVER be abused in their lives? Because they don't allow it. And people who treat women as perennial victims do the a great disservice. This is not teaching them to be strong.
Uh, Charity, 100%-70% is 30%, which is almost one-third. This is a non-trivial percentage, or didn't they teach you that in your psych classes?
Charity you strike me as someone whose book learning hasn't translated well into ACTUAL learning.
Superficial doesn't begin to describe you.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.
OR
Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.
You chose.
Charity... I do not even know how to respond to you. I seriously can't believe what I am reading here.
You say you have a degree in psych, have TAUGHT psych and you think these are the only two options available to a therapist when a woman comes in for help with an abusive relationship?
Are you KIDDING?
Your perception of the world is so odd I can hardly believe you manage to exist in the real world.
It scares me to think you have possibly taught your warped views to young minds.
:-(
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Psychologist A: Sit and listen to multiple repeats of depression, abusive events, self-loathing, guilt, low self-esteem. Result: Years of repeated victimization, but she knows why it is happening.
OR
Psychologist B: Tell the woman that the past is past and nothing will change it. Then guide her into how to make the future better by taking charge of her own life. Result: A woman gets her life on track and is no longer a victim.
This is a false dichotomy of your own construct.
And, by the way, why wasn't Jesus telling the leaders of his church to tell victims of abuse to get the h**l outa dodge?
You clearly don't understand the basic division in philosophies of treatment. One side stresses "understanding." The other stresses changes in behavior. I've seen the behavioral change processes work best. On the other hand, I have seen some real disasters with the "softer" line of treatment.
I don't understand your by the way comment. Please clarify.
To support BishopRic, I would have to say that there are indeed precarious circumstances that pop up within the ward leadership. This from a different angle, but here goes:
In my homeward we had a great bishop who called a first counselor. This counselor had many children, one of them being a teen daughter. He was in the habit of molesting her before he received his calling as well as during his calling as 1st counselor. One might wonder where the spirit of discernment was in this scenario? Moving along, this counselor had also propositioned my mother as well as at least one other sister in the ward. I cannot recall if the propositioning of the adult women took place during his tenure as counselor, or before.
I was out in the mission field when everything finally hit the fan. Boy were there some fireworks though!
I guess the moral of the story is that BishopRic's experience is absolutely reasonable. Oh yes, I just remembered that while serving stateside there was one particular ward that had TWO bishops in a row run off with women other than there own wives. Had they lived during Brigham's time this would have been a non issue! Hah!
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
beastie wrote:And, by the way, why wasn't Jesus telling the leaders of his church to tell victims of abuse to get the h**l outa dodge?
I don't understand your by the way comment. Please clarify.
To venture a guess, I think beastie is saying that if your proposed methodology is indeed the superior way to counsel abused women, then why doesn't God inspire the bishops, stake presidents, etc. to do things the way you advocate (as opposed to the way they've handled such things in the past)?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"